Speeches

Dear Mr President, Dear colleagues! The European Union's economy is under pressure: It's about jobs, it's about the existence of hundreds of thousands of citizens. One reason for these existential fears is wrong decisions at European level in recent years, and by that I do not mean climate protection, which is not the problem, but the way in which climate protection is operated. We have too much policy of prohibition, too much law of order, too much bureaucracy, too much political philosophizing, which technology is the best. Then the economy moves to third countries. This is bad for jobs, but it is also bad for the climate. There is often more CO.2 than would ever be the case with us. Everything could be handled much easier and better. Ambitious targets for CO savings2 – Yes, but do not prescribe which technology to use. Yes to openness to technology, including cars, homes and industry. Yes to hydrogen networks without overregulating. Yes to renewable energies and storage. We need to act urgently. Let's keep climate protection as a goal, but correct the way to it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! Imagine a dangerous curve. 50 km/h speed limit. One drives through at 150 km/h and builds an accident. It makes no sense at all to lower and tighten the speed limit from 50 km/h to 30 km/h, but if someone breaks a law, then the law does not have to be made stricter, but the law must be better controlled. But that's exactly what happened with medical devices. All medical devices had to be re-approved, including those that have been safe on the market for many years. What was meant well for patient safety is now becoming a danger to patients because certain proven products are no longer available. An adaptation of the Medical Devices Regulation is therefore urgently needed. We need a workable solution for orphan devices and paediatric surgery, abolition of the five-year recertification for Low‐Riskproducts. We need sufficient capacity in the notified bodies and Fast track‐Approvals for innovative products. As a doctor – as an active doctor – and a Member of Parliament, I say with all my heart: Safer and faster approvals save lives.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The European Union is humanity’s largest peace project, the world’s largest single market and – through common standards and shared management of emergencies – a real added value for people. But in some areas, Commissioner, we are lagging behind, for example in creating a genuine internal energy market. Yes, we are making progress on renewable energy and independence from Russian gas. Nevertheless, the following applies: The Energy Union is still in its infancy. In Draghi's speech earlier, it was clearly heard: Cheap and clean energy is vital to our future. In summary, one can say: Wherever the CO2‐ETS allowance trading is going well, as emissions have halved in the last 20 years. Where the ETS does not apply, things are not going so well. That is why the Commission wants to speed up the pace of change, as it says. I think that's wrong. We don't have to go faster; We need to learn to go the right way. Prohibition policies and regulatory clubs, such as the combustion ban or the Building Efficiency Directive, lead to the loss of jobs and the increase in construction costs. The ETS, on the other hand, and technology neutrality mean climate protection at a favorable cost. Let's trust the ETS! Soon it will also apply to buildings and traffic. Let's get rid of unnecessary bureaucratic and expensive banning policies! The European Union is a success story. Let's make the right decisions so that it stays that way in the future.

This is exactly what we have been fighting for for a long time. If there are possibilities that we can achieve balance sheet carbon neutrality – that is, if synthetic fuels are used, the compilation of which requires CO2 from the air; After that, when it comes to combustion, CO2 is released again, but that is zero on the balance sheet – then I am convinced, and my party is also convinced, that we must allow precisely these technologies. Then it is not part of the problem, but then the incinerator is part of the solution.

Dear Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The automotive industry is changing and on its way to carbon neutrality, and that's expensive. The Von der Leyen Commission's proposal was therefore completely out of place; It would have meant that there was no money for the transformation. Especially nonsensical, because cars would have become more expensive and the fleet renewal would have come to a standstill. And Euro 6 vehicles are not the problem – if so, it is only the older vehicles that are on the road. This text is better, but I am missing a very central point, and that is the issue of CO2-neutral synthetic fuels. With Euro 7, exactly that could have been anchored and should have been anchored by law. If we really want to counter climate change, we must not exclude technologies from the outset. The burner is neither good nor bad; It depends on what we burn in it. And if they are CO2-neutral fuels, the combustion engine is not the problem, but part of the solution. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. After solid comes off. This is a wisdom that not only has craftsmen or, as in my case, a surgeon, but that is something that is also true in politics. If you screw on a screw and make it tighter and tighter, it will hold more and more until it stops holding anything. The same goes for legislation. If someone breaks the law, it all too often does not help to tighten the law, but at best it would help to better check the law for compliance. But that is exactly what happened when the Medical Devices Regulation and the In vitro Products Regulation were tightened up in the last legislative period, namely that every medical device, every in vitro device, even if they have been safe on the market for years, had to be re-certified. By the way, the transitional periods for medical devices would have expired just at the beginning of the pandemic, where we were very happy that we have manufacturers of medical devices. I am grateful that at that time, also following a letter from me to Health Commissioner Kyriakides, we were able to change the transition periods. Now with the Eudamed database and the reporting requirement for bottlenecks: This may be a step in the right direction, but it is important that we once again extend the transitional periods for the in vitro diagnostic medical devices Regulation. But that's not enough, we need to create solutions for products that have been safe in the market for years. If there were problems with these, we would know about it. If we don't know about it, then there are no problems. That is why we need to find solutions in grandfathering and we also need to find solutions for rarely needed medical devices and in vitro devices. And this discussion must continue at the latest in the next legislature.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Classical genetic engineering and the new, highly selective breeding methods are not the same. You can achieve exactly the same with these new breeding methods as with classical breeding, only that it is much faster. This is the great advantage of creating resistance to drought, waterlogging or mould, and it is very timely. However, we cannot exploit the potential of this new technology with the current legal framework. The current legal framework dates back to the 1990s and, for example, CRISPR/Cas did not exist at that time. As a liberal, I want farmers and consumers to be able to make decisions, of course; It is therefore good that we have the obligation to label seeds. I also believe that we should not have patents on life. This is stated in the text, and we must also refer to the Biopatent Directive. All right, but it's in there. I think we need to be critically constructive. But when I listen to the Greens, it's ideological, and that's really unacceptable to me, what an alarmism is being made here that things are being thrown into the same pot. This was mentioned earlier: Genes are changed. Yeah, that's life. Normal breeding also changes genes. But with such statements you spread alarmism. Or, for example, genetic engineering is the opposite of natural. No, that's not exactly what it is, that can just mean a contribution to near-natural agriculture. And we can't close our eyes to that. We should not always just tell agriculture how not to do it, but we should tell it how to do it. We urgently need this law.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I still work four hours a week in a small hospital in the Albklinik on the Swabian Alb as a doctor. I always have the challenge that patients come to me who have fallen, for example, in Italy while skiing, now show up with me with some injury and I do not know exactly what they have. Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to carry out double examinations. This is bad for the patient, it is expensive and it is simply unnecessary. For this reason, a European Health Data Space is very important so that we can exchange primary data here. Secondary data, as anonymized data made available to science, is also incredibly important. Science can only be as good as the data it receives. It is clear that this is sensitive data. That we need data protection requirements that are very high is clear. But this is not data that is now being collected, for example, but data that is already being collected anyway and for which a common platform for interchangeability is now to be created. For us, a good opportunity for Europe – not a bit of Europe everywhere, but a strong Europe in the right places.

Dear Sarah Wiener, I believe that we really need to act in a uniform European way at this point. It is of no use if we then again have different situations in the Member States. I even believe that we have to go the other way from a principled approach. We need a reversal of the burden of proof. Where plant protection products endanger something, where the purpose of protection is compromised, I am immediately in the process of saying that here the use must be restricted, but first of all to ban, in order to then come to relief on the other side, I think that is the wrong approach. One should first allow and prohibit only where necessary.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, A real reduction strategy – yes, blanket bans – no. In view of the multiple crises in the world, secure food production in the EU is more important than ever. And no, it is not an alternative for us to impose more and more obligations on our farmers and to reduce our yield; We need to buy more on the global market. With all the sincere love for biodiversity, I say quite frankly: It cannot be that we are concentrating more and more on limiting ourselves and this leads to more global hunger. I therefore expect both the Commission and Parliament to show us how to do it, and not just bans as we should not. I therefore reject a blanket ban in sensitive areas. In the case of landscape conservation areas, this would be particularly tragic. These are intended to protect a cultural landscape; The SUR now threatens to destroy what is meant to protect the landscape conservation area. Restrictions in protected areas should be possible, yes, but only if the purpose of protection is endangered. I will therefore only be able to agree to the SUR if something is still happening in the protected areas. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Dear Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Do you need Euro 7? Of course, making cars better and cleaner is important. The only problem is that the automotive sector is already on its way to decarbonisation – and the costs are incredibly high. Well, if Euro 7 becomes too strict and too expensive, then first of all the resources of the industry are missing in this transformation process. Second, Euro 7 vehicles are becoming more expensive. Then people can't afford new cars, and fleet renewal comes to a halt. In addition: Euro 6 vehicles are not our problem. If then only older vehicles, which are then no longer replaced. For me, therefore, Euro 7 only makes sense if renewable fuels are enshrined in the law. A burner is neither good nor bad. It depends on what you burn in it. Let's make sure it's something climate neutral that gets burned. Unfortunately, renewable fuels are not part of this bill. I think that's wrong. That is why I have tabled amendments to correct this. Only openness to technology brings the best and cheapest solutions. Please support our amendments to make a better law.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. You'll be surprised if I say this: We don't need a bit of Europe everywhere, but we need a strong Europe in the right places. And the right places are exactly where it comes to the supply of vital things, for example with medication, or where it comes to the strategic orientation of things. And we need not be surprised, because in the past we have not asked the question of security of supply at all. Everyone only buys from the cheapest provider. But, ladies and gentlemen, we are the largest single market in the world. Everyone understands it, but not ourselves. If every Member State simply always buys the cheapest, we should not be surprised if there are only two or three production companies worldwide for certain medicines. We need to evolve, we need a joint procurement approach, we need diversification of supply chains, we also need more production in Europe, we need joint purchasing. And as I said in the beginning, we don’t need a little bit of Europe everywhere, but we need a very strong Europe when it comes to the important stuff, and this is like one of the very important points here: we need a little less Member State and a little more Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner! Rising energy prices are putting many citizens in existential need. Jobs are threatened. The European Union cannot and must not remain silent here, but must act. At last Friday's Energy Ministers' Conference, there were some proposals, some better, some worse. For example, the revenue ceilings on inframarginal power generation are okay, but it is important that it is not regulated in every Member State, but that there must be a uniform European solution. Nevertheless, European energy policy is very often not on the right track. All too often, regulatory law dictates what we don't want, or technology is burdened with bureaucratic burdens. In our politics, unfortunately, there are everyday favorite children and technological stepchildren. In doing so, we would have a CO2 certificate trading system that could solve all this openly and well. Often you hear what we don't want, but far too little we hear what we want and where we want to get in. It now threatens, for example, ‘no wood’ or hydrogen is made more difficult. For example, additionality makes the ramp-up of a hydrogen economy difficult to impossible. New technologies must also be much more in our focus in the future. This can be seen in the United States, for example. Our commitment to nuclear fusion and the hydrogen economy should serve as an example here.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, A clear yes to climate neutrality by 2050. But prescribing certain technologies or banning others is the wrong way to go. We need technology openness. Let's take advantage of the innovation potential that exists in Europe. And measuring only CO2 in an exhaust is too little, that's jumped too short. We need a life cycle assessment; we need one well-to-wheelapproach. Nothing against battery electric vehicles. But just because a battery-electric vehicle doesn't have an exhaust does not mean it doesn't have CO2 emissions. Emissions take place elsewhere. And an internal combustion engine can be climate-neutral if it is powered by synthetic fuels. If we allow only battery-electric vehicles from 2035, then we become dependent. More than 80% of the required resources come from Chinese-controlled companies. Run from one dependency to another dependency: Have we not learned anything in this crisis? And if, by the way, it is true, as some claim, that synthetic fuels will become too expensive in the future, then they do not need to ban the combustion engine. Then it just won't take place or just take place where you need it. Without needing to bet on just one card, I simply think it's wrong.

Mr President! Ladies and Gentlemen! Not everything the EU did in relation to the COVID-19 crisis was perfect. I also know this through my profession as a doctor, where I was last on the road as a vaccination doctor the day before yesterday or Monday. I am not criticising the EU here because I do not want joint procurement, but on the contrary: We need to get better here. We need more joint procurement in the future. Despite the criticism, the approach of joint vaccine procurement was correct. We have no problem with patents. We have the problem that mRNA vaccines cannot be produced in the garage, and therefore the release of patents does not help. We have several vaccine manufacturers, different mechanisms of action, and that benefits us now. Because the triple vaccination with mRNA vaccines seems to be at least a complete immune escape to prevent Omikron. We must be grateful for that. Overall, Europe has gained confidence. The ECDC and EMA in particular have shown that they can. By the way, quite in contrast to some players of the nation-states, which have unsettled. And in some places it is certain that the EU will gain more competences in the field of health. Not a bit of Europe everywhere, but a strong Europe in the right places!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The rise in energy prices in Europe means the loss of jobs. And certainly, the pricing of CO2 is important for climate protection, emissions trading (ETS) is important. And yet there are things we can do. Here are five suggestions: First, more grid expansion, more smart grids, more intelligent control, Power on Demand, so that the consumption can be adapted to the offer. Secondly: In times of low electricity prices, this savings must be passed on to consumers. Thirdly: Increasingly high standards are expensive. It is technology openness and certificate trading EHS that bring the best and cheapest solutions. And these new technologies can then also be sold worldwide and secure jobs here. Fourthly: The revenues from the ETS must be returned to the people as part of a citizen's dividend. Fifth: Higher prices inevitably also mean higher tax revenues on energy. That is why the winners are the Member States., The losers are the people. Energy taxes must therefore be reduced. Dear colleagues, Rising energy costs mean the loss of jobs and prosperity. Stable prices stand for a successful Europe.

Dear Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Germany, too, has repeatedly benefited from the European Solidarity Fund in recent years – I would like to say this clearly in the direction of the critics of Europe here in this area. This summer, Europe not only experienced several fire disasters, but also a severe flood disaster. In one of the most severely affected areas of the flood disaster, in the Ahr Valley, I myself worked for three weeks as a specialist in surgery and had a lot to do. Incidentally, undercoverwithout hanging large on the nail, which I usually do professionally. At this point, I would like to thank all the friends who helped there, the Blue Light Group, the Bundeswehr, but also the many, many volunteers of the helper shuttle. If you have lost faith in humanity, go to the Ahr Valley, there you will find it again. And that's good, because the construction there will take a long time, and it will be very expensive. The problem with this year's disasters is: The Solidarity Fund is empty. Europe needs to get better here. And here I ask President von der Leyen and the Commission to raise funds. We don't need a bit of Europe everywhere. We need a strong Europe in the right places. When we have to fight the damage of natural catastrophes, Europe has to show up and we have to be visible.